satt comments on What legal ways do people make a profit that produce the largest net loss in utility? - Less Wrong

2 Post author: Punoxysm 25 March 2014 01:53AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (85)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: satt 26 March 2014 12:05:56AM 2 points [-]

Monopoly businesses. Net loss of utility through inefficiency.

However, increasing returns to scale may make a monopoly a more efficient producer than a non-monopoly. In those cases the efficiency loss due to the lack of competition may be more than cancelled out by the efficiency gain from exploiting returns to scale.

Comment author: witzvo 27 March 2014 01:32:22AM 0 points [-]

The "canceled out" part depends on whether your interested in the utility of stockholders and the reduced resource consumption of the manufacturing process or the utility of the general population which might have to consume less of the product than they'd otherwise be able (because of higher prices) or more generally have less capital left to buy other things they need/want. Monopolies with regulated price structures sometimes work, I guess, though it's complicated.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 31 March 2014 12:38:44AM 1 point [-]

So... what utility will be calculated will depend on whether one arbitrarily excludes a set of humans from the utility calculation?

Comment author: witzvo 31 March 2014 04:04:29AM 0 points [-]

Sorry I guess it wasn't clear. I was contrasting two naive utility functions: a flat one which adds up the utilons of all people versus one that only counts the utilons of stock brokers. I'm not asserting that one or the other is "right". Both utilities would have some additional term giving utility for preserving resources, but I'm not being concrete about how that's factored in. [I'm also not addressing in any depth the complications that a full utilitarian calculation would need like estimated discounted future utilons, etc.] Did I clear it up or make it worse?

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 01 April 2014 09:59:03PM 1 point [-]

I took "or" in your previous comment to be exclusive, so that "the general population" does not include stockholders. Are you now saying that your two categories are "stock holders" and "everyone, including stock holders"? (And presumably meant "stock holders" when you wrote "stock brokers" in you most recent comment")

Comment author: witzvo 02 April 2014 02:51:53AM 0 points [-]

yes, that's what I meant; thank you.